back to article Would EU exit 'stuff' the UK? Tech policy boss gets diplomatic

One of the official cheerleaders of Europe’s digital industry said he couldn’t believe the UK would be mad enough to vote itself out of Europe in the upcoming EU referendum, and leave itself effectively stuffed as a tech power. OK, John Higgins, former intellect boss and now director general of DigitalEurope, was far more …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The solution then, is obviously to make English the first language in all of Europe.

    I am joking, but it does make sense as a long term goal. Not that France would allow it.

    1. Professor Clifton Shallot

      Or to fashion an opportunity out of an apparent problem and make all European tech inherently able to cope with multiple languages so that expansion beyond the EU single market is straightforward.

      It's a bit like the Android problem of having to deal with different screen resolutions as opposed to Apple's (sort of) known quantities - the end result is the better Android apps have the ability to cope designed in and in the long term this saves effort.

    2. Daniel von Asmuth
      FAIL

      The single language

      You want the whole EU to speak the language of the UK? I believe it is called Welsh. Not much chance of that happening! Latin is the language of Europe.

      Fifty years ago the EU had plans to bolster its electronics and computing industries, but they could not beat IBM and Sony then and they won't beat the Chinese and Indians now.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The single language

        English is the most internationally useful language and it's also generally the common language between EU countries anyway ( the average, Spaniard, for example, is more likely to speak English than Flemmish ).

        The EU was originally founded on the principle of protectionism, so I suppose Flemiish might be a more natural fit, but English would be the sensible choice.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The single language

          it is true, English is a useful language as it is a common 2nd language around the world.

          I don't like to generalize, but I found the French the least willing to co-operate with people who can't speak their own language well....

          If someone is trying to talk to me and English is NOT their first language and they are struggling, I pronounce my diction much clearer, and slow down so they have time to process what I say and understand me, or at least get the gist of what I say, repeating in 4-5 different ways to hope I say a word they understand.

          In France? No luck, if you can't speak fluent French they are rude and obnoxious...

    3. JustNiz

      I really thought this had already been officially decided years ago.

      I certainly remember some decision around English being the EU common language, and France getting pissy over French not being chosen.

      1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

        French is the official language of the UN. It's used in the public sessions.

        However whenever anything useful is discussed, e.g. in the side rooms, it's always in English. Even the French speak English in these side meetings, although they might grumble about it. It's nothing against French as a language, just that when you need to find a common language and the only one in common is English that's what gets spoken.

        1. streaky

          French is the official language of the UN. It's used in the public sessions.

          French is an official language of the UN (protip: German is not) it has nothing to do with the language used in meetings, which are usually in English where possible; failing that translators are big business in New York - but only between the official languages. Official languages of the UN are besides that mostly related to documentation that is produced.

  2. Jamie Jones Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Well, we're screwed then

    The people voted against Scottish independence, yet voted in overwhelmingly the party who has that as it's goal.

    The people claim the voting system is pants, but vote against PR (apparently, in a group, if 10 people want to go to the pub, but each choose a different pub, but 2 in the group choose the same coffee shop, all 12 of them will happily spend Saturday night drinking coffee)

    The people are jingoistic racist idiots who know more about celebrities than Government policies, and are more likely to vote on Big Brother than parliament, and think our empire is being overrun by scummy foreigners and the country controlled by 'them abroad' who take all our money and spend it on straightening bananas, or something. After all, that's what the tabloids say.

    *awaits downvotes*

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Well, we're screwed then

      The people voted against Scottish independence, yet voted in overwhelmingly the party who has that as it's goal.

      Those are answers to two different questions. I would interpret those results as a clear message that they want to remain in the UK (the referendum), but that within the UK they want to be represented by people who have Scottish interests as the highest priority (the election). It doesn't seem a contradictory position to me.

      apparently, in a group, if 10 people want to go to the pub, but each choose a different pub, but 2 in the group choose the same coffee shop, all 12 of them will happily spend Saturday night drinking coffee)

      Not at all, that's confusing democracy with majority rule.

      In the situation as you mention it, the two who drink coffee have a moral obligation to meet for their coffee in a pub at least some Saturday nights.

      The PR situation is where 2 people only drink coffee, 5 people like lager, but are OK with coffee sometimes and 5 people much prefer ale but also occasionally drink coffee. Every saturday ends up in the coffee shop because it's the only thing that ever gets a majority agreement.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. streaky

      Re: Well, we're screwed then

      The problem with PR is it generally hits a situation where one person has one vote and somebody else has six; which is a nonsense state of affairs in a democracy. Smart small parties wouldn't spread themselves so thin as for example UKIP's case - trying to stand in every constituency cost them heavily.

      As for the Scots, I wouldn't even start trying to decode that one; how so few people can hold the keys to so many parliamentary seats is nothing to do with PR and everything to do with how asymmetrically seats are allocated. Scotland has too many constituencies, parliament is too big: Scotland should loose a lot of seats, and I say this as a Labour voter who realises that probably means Tory governments till the end of time if Labour don't get their act together.

    4. veti Silver badge

      Re: Well, we're screwed then

      Actually, the SNP vote in Scotland was less than 50%. (Barely less. But still "less".) So even if the general election had been the referendum, the result would still have been "no" to independence.

      As it happened, the referendum had significantly higher turnout than the general election.

      So statistically, it's quite possible that every single one of those SNP voters last month actually voted "yes" in the referendum.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

    That sounds like an argument to be out, rather than in.

    Few seem aware that the "single market" exists separately from the EU:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

    You don't need to be an EU member to be in the EEA. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping bilateral trade agreements with whatever countries you like.

    The main business of the EU is giving money to farmers, and that doesn't seem to have all that much to do with the UK tech sector.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

      You don't need to be an EU member to be in the EEA. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping bilateral trade agreements with whatever countries you like.

      Both true but the UK isn't a separate member of the EEA so it will have to apply to join and this will inevitably mean signing up to EU standards as the existing members have to. As to bilateral agreements, that was the basis for most of the agreements that Switzerland had with the EU. If you follow the current contortions that the Swiss parliament is going through to try and avoid implementing the immigration restriction, you'll see that bilateral agreements of any kind with individual member states, let alone trade agreements, are getting much harder to make because they potentially conflict with the Single European Act, so the Commission gets the chance to vet them.

      Farming subsidies aside, the EU's budget is still tiny compared to national ones.

    2. DrXym

      Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

      The UK tech sector as you put it has extremely strong ties to Europe. Many European headquarters are situated in the UK. Many of the people working in the UK are from EU countries. Many businesses have major trade of software and services within the EU.

      All of that is put at risk by leaving. There isn't far less point in having a European HQ which isn't actually in the EU for example.There isn't much point being outside the EU if it means the hassle of extra red tape, more worker visas and so on.

      And yes the UK could probably achieve some kind of free trade agreement. It would command the same sorts of power and influence that Norway and Switzerland do over the EU - pretty much none.

      Of course, if the UK was stupid enough to leave the EU then almost certainly Scotland would leave the UK, and possibly Northern Ireland too. So there would be options for companies which wished to relocate. Oh what fun that would be.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

        All of that is put at risk by leaving.

        None of that is put at risk by leaving, given that it all existed and worked just fine before the EU existed, when there was just the common market (i.e. an EEA-level agreement).

        Of course, if the UK was stupid enough to leave the EU then almost certainly Scotland would leave the UK, and possibly Northern Ireland too

        They would both then have to apply to join the EU, which would require them to join the Euro, you think that the Scots would be that daft? NI wouldn't be big enough as an independent state, and would probably be forced into Irish unity leading to a bloodbath that would make Ukraine look like a picnic. I can't see the DUP voting to leave the UK with that as an outcome, and Sinn Fein are anti-EU anyway.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

          All of that is put at risk by leaving.

          None of that is put at risk by leaving, given that it all existed and worked just fine before the EU existed, when there was just the common market (i.e. an EEA-level agreement).

          Most of it at risk. The situation pre-1974 is not the same: there was little freedom of movement of goods; no freedom of movement of people and no freedom of movement of capital. The UK has profited significantly from all three.

          Good luck wishing to turn back the clock. Why not go the whole hog and pretend Victoria is still Empress of India? The corn laws would still be in place and children could employed to do all kinds of useful work because they are cheap and nimble. Ah, happy days…

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

            The situation pre-1974 is not the same:

            What has 1974 got to do with it? The transition from economic union to political union was the Maastricht treaty in 1992.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Trollface

              Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

              wasn't that the treaty Maggie signed up for?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

                wasn't that the treaty Maggie signed up for?

                No. Heath signed the UK up to the common market, John Major signed up for Maastricht.

        2. DrXym

          Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

          "None of that is put at risk by leaving"

          I'm sorry but reality and common sense begs to differ about that. Being burdened by two increasingly divergent legal, economic, financial systems will not help any business.trying to trade across those boundaries.

          "They would both then have to apply to join the EU, which would require them to join the Euro, you think that the Scots would be that daft?"

          The SNP have already said they'd do it and they'd definitely win a referendum this time if the UK left. As for Northern Ireland, I didn't say Irish unity but there is the matter of that land border (which of course would suddently exist with Scotland but hey), and the sudden barriers to trade and free movement that both sides have enjoyed and an exit would deprive them of.

          As I said, think of the fun. Basically the UK is pointing a gun at its own head and threatening to pull the trigger. It has far more on the line than anyone watching.

        3. Tomato42
          Stop

          Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

          "They would both then have to apply to join the EU, which would require them to join the Euro, you think that the Scots would be that daft?"

          where this FUD comes from?!

          You don't have to join the Eurozone to join EU. Neither Czech Republic, Poland or Croata use Euro!

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

            You don't have to join the Eurozone to join EU. Neither Czech Republic, Poland or Croata use Euro!

            One of the conditions for joining the EU now is a commitment to join the Euro within a set time. Some countries, like the UK, negotiated opt-outs when they joined, but the EU has made it clear that no-one else will be allowed to do that. Czech Republic and Croatia do not, AFAIK, have an opt-out, and so they must join the Euro at some defined point in the future. Poland I'm not sure about.

      2. streaky

        Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

        Hey we're not in the EU any more, we can't trade with the EU, we can't have immigration from the EU, we can't travel to the EU.

        Yeah, no.

        As for tariffs, Germany has way more to lose than the UK does, especially when we can buy better stuff for cheaper from China - which would be great after we have negotiated a FTA with China within months that's decades away from a possibility for the EU.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

          There are potential benefits in having harmonised product safety standards, and harmonised consumer rights legislation (in terms of ease of access to markets and hence lower product costs)

          Do those things require harmonised levels of VAT between states, and harmonised defence policy? Methinks not.

    3. Velv
      Facepalm

      Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

      Ironically leaving the European Union and joining the European Economic Area would require the UK to join the Schengen Agreement, thus removing the border controls we currently enjoy as part of our opt out of our membership of the EU.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

        Ironically leaving the European Union and joining the European Economic Area

        The UK is already a member of both the EU and the EEA, it signed the EEA agreement in 1992 and ratified it in 1993. There's no theoretical bar to it leaving the EU's political institutions while remaining in the EEA.

    4. Steelhead

      Re: “national measures” continue to entangle the single market

      Please read the links you are posting. The EEA has to abide by the four freedoms of the EU which include free movement, so the Farage's of this world, hoping to send home the Eastern Europeans are going to be sadly disappointed. Remember, apart from a very tiny minority, the EU immigrants who live in the UK are working so would fall under this. See the following link for for info:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union

      Oh, and in the EEA you have to accept a certain number of EU rules and conditions without having any actual influence on said rules.

  4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    A question of English?

    said he couldn’t believe the UK would be mad enough to vote itself out of Europe

    I suppose that depends on whether "mad" is interpreted as "crazy" or "angry".

    Anyway, I've not heard many people who want to break the economic, EEA-style ties with Europe, they just want to get out from under the political control. The real questions are how to do that, and whether the EU will let it happen. Many of the Eurocrats are just petty enough to do everything they can to ensure that a country which leaves will fail, if only to avoid the embarassment of it being more successful outside of Brussels/Strasbourg's political control.

    1. Professor Clifton Shallot

      Re: A question of English?

      "Many of the Eurocrats are just petty enough to do everything they can to ensure that a country which leaves will fail"

      Doesn't need them to be petty - they have a direct self-interest in ensuring that if they can.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: A question of English?

        Doesn't need them to be petty - they have a direct self-interest in ensuring that if they can.

        And isn't that the root of the whole problem.

        Prior to the EU, the common market, despite its failings, did a decent job. It provided a solid trading basis for large, sovereign nations and ensured free movement of people and goods. Left like that Europe could have gone on to decades of success and prosperity. It worked for most people, and most businesses.

        Unfortunately that didn't work for the politicians, since "trade" was beneath them. They had no way to make their mark nor justify their existence with mere commercial work so they created the EU, a political masterpiece supposedly run by politicians, most of whom seem to get paid for doing nothing. They added their favorite vanity project, the single currency, fudging the convergence criteria to force it into existence. They're happy, they have their pointless elections with the laughable turnount and their 'legacy'. "Grexit" isn't going to do more than give them mild indigestion after the 2nd bottle of Chateau Lafitte, but it's been a downhill slide into mediocrity since then. Far from 50 years of prosperity, I think people looking back 50 years from now will see the EU much as we see the USSR; as a failed political experiment that ruined most of its members.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: A question of English?

      The real questions are how to do that, and whether the EU will let it happen. Many of the Eurocrats are just petty enough to do everything they can to ensure that a country which leaves will fail, if only to avoid the embarassment of it being more successful outside of Brussels/Strasbourg's political control.

      That's FUD.

      The Single European Act is the basis for the single market and it is purely political. If the UK leaves and wishes to negotiate new treaties, then while they will be negotiated with the European Commission, it is the member states who will decide the fate. The UK can "survive" outside the EU but, given the scale of integration, then leaving will be extremely disruptive to large parts of the economy as well as things like research cooperation.

    3. jonfr

      Re: A question of English?

      Being in a country that is in EEA (Iceland). I can tell you one thing, everything is more expensive in EEA then in EU. It has everything to do with customs and all that. Inside EEA UK would also not have any power of EU laws that they would have to adopt in law.

      Nigel Farage and all of the anti-EU crowd on the EU parliament (for the UK) would be out of a job. That is the only positive thing about UK leaving the EU.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: A question of English?

        @ jonfr

        "Nigel Farage and all of the anti-EU crowd on the EU parliament (for the UK) would be out of a job. That is the only positive thing about UK leaving the EU."

        Why out of a job? The world doesnt end after exiting the EU. At one point UKIP were the only ones planning to build enough housing, I am not sure if any other party eventually caught up. Then there is the capacity to not only look to a world wide immigration policy but also world wide trade. With the EU looking shaky and the eurozone looking painful (and Greece is yet to leave!) we need to start looking at the rest of the world. Working with as much as we can and not being insulated and trapped by an uncertain and unfriendly little club.

    4. streaky

      Re: A question of English?

      The UK is sure as hell angry enough to leave the EU. Take it either way, it's the sane and measured thing to do.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        51st state?

        Britain would probably be better off joining the US than the EU if it came down to a choice. I'm sure people in the US would appreciate the irony!

        1. MrXavia

          Re: 51st state?

          "Britain would probably be better off joining the US than the EU if it came down to a choice. I'm sure people in the US would appreciate the irony!"

          Are the secret plan, to take down those American rebels from the inside!

          Clever!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          WTF?

          Re: 51st state?

          I always thought a portion of the Tory Party would just love that - historicaly bonkers - but the way all UK governments suck up to the USA I think means it has legs....

        3. streaky

          Re: 51st state?

          Britain would probably be better off joining the US than the EU if it came down to a choice

          How about we just have good working relationships with both - and China and India; and anywhere else. The UK is the home of international free trade and we shouldn't be locking ourselves into dealing with any one bloc, the EU is so big and cumbersome it takes decades to put FTAs together because they themselves have to be big and cumbersome - and in the end they don't work for us anyway, look at the state of TTIP.

          Protip: there's no reason the UK can't have an FTA with the EU without being an EEA member, it's something Germany is going to want.

          The EU is still debating (and only in the back-burner sense) if it should even have a FTA with China - before it even gets to the decades of negotiations - whilst Australia is set to announce theirs within a few days. This is obviously an untenable state of affairs.

  5. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Holmes

    A lack

    of skills is holding back.....

    So wheres the solution to that.... a quick round of blaming tech companies for internal transfers..... or maybe looking at just how much it costs to train up us techie type people to the required standard, then realise that a lot of us as individuals cant afford that sort of outlay. £5000 for a Open university course anyone? thought not.

    If the governments want a better skilled population, do you think it would be a good idea if they invested in a better skilled population?

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Re: A lack

      If the governments want a better skilled population, do you think it would be a good idea if they invested in a better skilled population?

      Don't be silly. Education should be democratised so any school leaving fuckwit can, and should be encouraged, almost forced, to go to University. It doesn't have anything to do with them being academically capable of it, just as long as the "pass" grades have been manipulated enough that a failing academic system can be statistically proven(*) to be producing better, or at the very least more qualified, students. These bright stars of the future can then join universities up and down the country dragging the level of learning down to such a level that the entire first year of many courses is trying to both teach elementary level aspects of the course that should have been taught at GCSE level and re-programming students to think for themselves and not to just be exam-passing automatons who can't think outside of the narrow range of questions that they'll be guaranteed to be in a paper. Naturally this level of "enhanced" university tuition is expensive and therefore the university grants should be cut, universities allowed to charge "up to" a trivial level to make up for the greater level of cuts they've suffered and the process is complete.

      But this is all for the greater good, university level education should be available for everyone, not just the academically gifted. (While the premise that university level education should be available for everyone that is academically gifted and not just those with the cash to fund their education is a good one, somewhere along the line the entire process has gone horribly, horribly, wrong).

      /rant :)

      (*) http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Lie-Statistics-Penguin-Business/dp/0140136290

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Go

        Re: A lack

        yes, but calm down dear

  6. Zippy's Sausage Factory
    Joke

    Leaving the EU would be stupid.

    As far as I can tell, if the UK leaves the EU, then the following scenario is pretty plausible:

    1. Common Agricultural Policy no longer applies to the UK.

    2. Lots of farmers lose their subsidies.

    3. Lots of farmers who couldn't afford to supply the supermarkets without those subsidies go broke.

    4. Food skyrockets in price.

    5. Hyperinflation sets in. (Of course, if the UK had big gold reserves that wouldn't be such a problem...)

    Give me another couple of hours I can think of a few more potential disaster scenarios, if you want them...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

      2. Lots of farmers lose their subsidies.

      Yes, but they'd be French farmers, so...

      (the UK is a net contributor to the CAP, it could subsidise all UK farmers to the same (low) levels and still be in profit)

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

        The CAP is a mess, but you're right that the UK is a net contributor. However, it has increasingly little effect on prices.

        If the UK were to leave the EU then there would be the following would happen:stuff that doesn't grow so well in the British climate would be harder to import and most probably more expensive (this would appreciably hit Spanish farms and British winter tables); it would be a lot harder to find cheap farm labourers from eastern Europe to work on British farms (this could push up prices and also reduce availability. In time, of course, new supplies could be found for both but the price could be higher.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

          I think you are forgetting that the farmers own the party that runs the country.

          Imports of food from europe would continue, the Eu has no reason to slap tarrifs on stuff going sold to Britain. The Eu might be tempted to slap massive import tarrifs on any food that Britain sells to Europe (Like Chuck's Oaty cakes).

          Eastern european workers would continue to be employed on farms, but free from that pesky human rights act the government could declare them to be peasants so you can legally shoot them (after Aug12) and could decide that minimum wage didn't apply to foreigners.

        2. MrXavia

          Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

          "stuff that doesn't grow so well in the British climate would be harder to import"

          I suspect you would see a flurry of poly tunnels being erected to grow the major imports from the EU here during winter, which I believe are tomatoes, cucumbers, and a few other things... although MOST of my shopping basket for food originates here, with the exception of a few imported fruit (mango, pineapple)

          I am planning to build an indoor growing area this winter to grow veg I enjoy all year round..

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

            exception of a few imported fruit (mango, pineapple)

            The Victorians used to grow pineapples under glass in England.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

          Yes, all that food we import from New Zealand and South Africa would be harder to import because we aren't in the EU.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

      I see it as:

      1. CAP no longer applies to UK

      2. UK farmers scream, and government promptly gives them their subsidies back. It's still cheaper than it was, because as noted, the UK is a net contributor to the CAP.

      3. However, now the UK's gov't subsidies are in breach of WTO and EEA rules. The ensuing legal wrangle ensure that UK food exports are basically annihilated.

      4. UK farmers scream again.

      5. Most of UK farmland bought up at bargain prices by French farmers. It's the Norman invasion all over again.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Leaving the EU would be stupid.

      Or what would actually happen:

      1: CAP no longer applies to UK

      2: UK gives *productive* farmers temporary subsidies so they don't go bust overnight

      3: UK guides the market to be large commercial farms like the US, phases out the subsidy and starts importing food from around the world.

      4: Cheaper food for everybody

      5: Completely unrelated, but no hyperinflation

      3 isn't necessary but a US style modernisation of farming makes sense and would be more likely if the subsidies were removed

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Depending on what Greece does on the 30th; there might not be an EU by 2017 to opt out of. Or what we know as the EU now, may be quite different. On the plus side, there may be some plummeting bankers, so it's not all doom and gloom.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      The Greece thing is being hyped up out of all proportion. Financially nothing will happen but there is the political risk of having a "failed state" on the south eastern border of the European Union. The bankers, alas, have already taken the money and run with it. That was largely the point of the last five years.

      Cameron, having dug himself in a silly hole but also having reasonably effectively seen off UKIP, is going to try and sneak the referendum through early while no one is looking.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > Financially nothing will happen but there is the political risk of having a "failed state"

        > on the south eastern border of the European Union. The bankers, alas, have already

        > taken the money and run with it.

        One thing that's hitting Greece hard at present is that no-one trusts the Greek banks, so currency is fleeing the country (as euros) while it can. If Grexit does happen, and Greece goes back to the Drachma, there will certainly be hard times ahead for Greece, but the rest of the EU will bounce back quickly.

        What will be really interesting then is to see how quickly Greece recovers. As a cheap, hot, and reasonably stable country, with good beaches, they will undoubtedly pick up a lot of the tourist money that is fuelling the economies of places like Croatia. Assuming Syriza don't fsck the place up completely (and indeed, I'd expect them to get the boot in the first election after Grexit), Greece in 2025 could be well on the way to being a solvent, independent, state building it's way back to prosperity.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Greece in 2025 could be well on the way to being a solvent, independent, state building it's way back to prosperity.

          Indeed it could. On the other hand, and the post-junta history would perhaps suggest this, it could still be a basket case. Greece's problem isn't its debt, which now has maturity dates that effectively are never never, but structural: non-extant land registry, ineffective tax system and inefficient labour market, etc.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Straight banana

    The EU is the only way forward.

    Russia and China making a territory grab, US "diplomacy" on trade and internationally out competed on resources.

    What would a tiny island do to fend for itself against these odds? We can't depend on delusions of empire by a select few inbred chinless wonders to pull in resources or defend our shores.

    Despite the tabloid press screaming blue murder over every exaggerated standardisation law (straight bananas & uk sausages are always popular) the EU have been very sensible and forward thinking.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Straight banana

      You mean "occasionally".

      Ignoring the Daily Wail, the EU Commission have regularly screwed the pooch, legislating on things that they do not understand - sometimes in a way that is actively hazardous to life.

      Harmonised conductor colours for example. That black wire can be 400V relative to that other black wire.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Straight banana

        "Harmonised conductor colours for example. That black wire can be 400V relative to that other black wire"

        Do you mean the one with the blue tape on it at the business ends? I agree though, there could be a better way - say red, blue, green and black for 4 core and red, blue and green for T&E. Maybe some yellow stripes on the green one.

      2. Loud Speaker

        Re: Straight banana

        Yes, it may be stupid, but think how harmonious the volts feel!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Straight banana

          Which ones? The 110 or 230 ones? Then there's the sockets n plugs ...

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Straight banana

      very sensible and forward thinking.

      Well, if thinking forward to getting relected without having to give up the expense-account travel and lunches counts as sensible...

      Frankly you could nuke the entire EU parliament tomorrow, and if it didn't make the news I doubt if anyone would notice this side of Christmas.

    3. Tomato42
      FAIL

      Re: Straight banana

      The UK then could officially become the Air Strip One it so desperately wants.

  9. Pete4000uk

    Can't we just have a Europe where goods and services can move around and projects worked on between countries without the political burden and huge cost of the EU commission and its daft rules?

    Defence woulnt be a problem as we have NATO.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Couldn't we have a country where goods and services can move around and projects worked on between counties without the political burden and huge cost of Westminster and its daft rules?

      Defence wouldnt be a problem as we have the USA to tell us what to do.

  10. billat29

    Companies and especially governments cheat - whether it is on product standards, product testing, subsidies, prices. You name it, they manipulate it so that they can sell their stuff in your market but you can't sell your stuff in theirs.

    So we need rules. If we leave, we are back to them setting the rules and us being disadvantaged.

    Why are the rules "daft"?

    1. We didn't turn up to the meetings where the standards were discussed and agreed.

    2. If we did turn up we screamed and shouted as we learned to do at Eton and Oxford ("debating") and left in a huff when we found out that everyone else had been negotiating sensibly.

    3. Then the media, for whom a common market in media represents a substantial risk to their profits and / or "unique" funding, pick up some random rubbish on bananas (where we probably didn't turn up) and portray as the end of the world.

    4. As for bankers and policitians.............

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Hmm. Logically speaking, if you don't have rules in the first place you can't cheat...

      If we did turn up we screamed and shouted as we learned to do at Eton and Oxford ("debating") and left in a huff when we found out that everyone else had been negotiating sensibly.

      Exaggerations apart, this is one of the problems that countries like the UK face. When a stupid idea is proposed, it's the countries like the UK who reply "I say, old boy, that's a damned stupid idea" and so get into trouble.

      The French play the game much better. They reply "Sacré Blue, quel spiffing idea, vieux garçon", then they return home laughing at the stupid idea and implement something ambiguously similar which works much better for them. Everybody says 'difficult bloody Brits, why can't they be like the French?"

      Statistically the eurosceptic countries like the UK and Denmark have a much better track record of implementing EU regulations exactly as they were designed, but because they argued and negotiated first they get the bad press.

  11. Schlimnitz

    The problem with the European project is that it is ideally suited to pundits and politicians and people who look at things from a long distance and think they're simple. And people who like things to be neat and all lined up. But reality is messy and not lined up. Especially European reality.

    Let's take a silly (but scarily-close-to-plausible) example:

    Driving on the left. That's stupid. Everyone else in Europe drives on the right. How inefficient of the UK: just think of all the money that could be saved if we didn't have to manufacture cars specifically for the UK market?!

    From a distance, it looks very sensible. Rationalisation and efficiency are all the rage after all.

    But if you get down to brass tacks, and start looking at the detail, you realise that the costs of getting from here to there are exorbitant, and even without considering the costs, the logistics (or even logic) of the transition are overwhelmingly complicated (if even possible).

    At which point, anyone sane would abandon it as an unfortunate, but unavoidable, part of reality, and move on to something else.

    But the European way is to cook up a face-saving, dogs breakfast of a compromise (left hand drive cars on left-hand drive roads?), spend years with special interest committees cooking up standards, then impose those standards on manufacturers (often pushing up their costs, but conveniently also putting up costs for (cough, Chinese) competitors). Then the committee starts over.

    My personal pet theory is that democracy and efficiency are inherently contradictory, at least on the face of things. If you want something done, it's better to just get on with it than asking people's opinions. But that supposes that you know what needs doing...

    Personally, I prefer less efficiency and more democracy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Metric

      If what you say is true then the metric system should never been attempted and we all should of kept our independent weights, measures and fixings.

      Imagine the airbus project under such a dispersed and chaotic system.

      It would cost a lot to swap road sides for cars and with each year it will cost more to make such a change. Thank goodness we're willing to pay extra for our cars to save us from this now huge one-off cost.

      Distance gives perspective and goals. The up-close and difficult stuff will always happen, it might as well be doing something that makes life safer, easier and more efficient for those that follow.

      1. Schlimnitz

        Re: Metric

        Many parts of industry had already converted to metric before it became mandatory.

        Even if not, running Airbus with an internally metric system without forcing the whole country to change would have been totally possible.

        A country individually deciding to make this kind of change - through their democratically elected representatives - is totally reasonable. Having it imposed from the outside is not.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like